N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this Writ Application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 1827, dated 30.4.2003 (Annexure - 9) issued by the respondent No. 3 and Office Order No. 50, dated 8.5.2003 (Annexure -10) issued by the respondent No. 7 whereby the petitioner 'sservices have been terminated.
(2.) THE petitioner 'scase is that he was working as Work Inspector under the Work Charge Establishment in the office of the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Jhumritilaya when the said impugned orders were issued. The petitioner was initially appointed as Work Inspector in Jharia Sub -Division, by office order dated 16.9.1969 issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Dhanbad. After about a year, he was terminated from the service on the ground of non - availability of the post by Officer Order No. 795, dated 25.12.1970. The petitioner being a retrenched employee was given appointment on that ground on the vacant post of Work Inspector in the office of the Executive Engineer, Gumla Division by Office Order No. 217, dated 8.10.1980. But after about one year he was terminated from service w.e.f. 20.10.1981 by Office Order No. 1263, dated 16.10.1981 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Circle, Ranchi. The Engineer -in - Chief -cum -Special Secretary, Public Health and Engineering Department, Bihar issued a general direction to all Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers of the Department vide Memo No. 838, dated 25.8.1986 clearly instructing them not to retrench any employee working under regular, Work Charge Establishment, Daily Wages, Hand Receipt before 1.4.1982 without written order from the Department. The Engineer -in -Chief - cum - Special Secretary, PHED, Bihar, on the basis of settlement with the Public Health Engineering Employee Association, Bihar issued a circular by Memo No. 3857, dated 23.9.1987 (Annexure -8) directing, inter alia, to absorb the petitioner on the vacant post of the Work Inspector in the said Circle with immediate effect. The petitioner 'scase is that in spite of the said order, his joining was delayed by the Sub -ordinate Officers. Ultimately, by Order No. 8, dated 30.1.1988 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Work Inspector in Public Health Section, Barhi. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the clear provision for regularization and specific order issued by the office of the Engineer -in -Chief and Superintending Engineer dated 23.9.1987 and 11.1.1988 respectively the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis. However, the petitioner joined pursuant to the said order dated 30.1.1988. By Memo No. 1827, dated 30.4.2003, the Joint Secretary, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation issued letters to all the Executive Engineers of the Department to terminate the services of all the employees who have been appointed in irregular manner after 31.12.1987. The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation, on the basis of the said letter, terminated the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 8.5.2003. According to the petitioner his case was to be considered long ago for regularization but instead of regularizing and placing his services on permanent basis, he has been terminated from service by the impugned order arbitrarily and illegally. The State -respondents have filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned termination order. The main plea for justifying the said termination order is that the date of joining of the petitioner is 30.1.1988 whereas 31.12.1987 has been fixed as a cut off date for consideration of regularization. It has been stated that since the date of joining is after the said cut -off date, the petitioner has no right to continue in service and as such he has been rightly terminated. However, in paragraph No. 6 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted that the Engineer -in -Chief -cum -Special Secretary had given a direction by letter No. 3857, dated 23.9.1987 to re -instate the petitioner on the post of Work Inspector with immediate effect. The Superintending Engineer had also directed the Executive Engineer, Hazaribagh to re -instate the petitioner and only thereafter, his joining was accepted on 30.1.1988.
(3.) MR . Rajesh Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that admittedly the petitioner 'sinitial appointment was on 16.9.1969, the said appointment was under the Work Charge Establishment. On the basis of a scheme: for the retrenched employee, the petitioner was also further engaged on that basis, the Chief Engineer -cum -Special Secretary, PHED, Bihar had issued the said letter (Annexure -6) for his absorption by letter No. 3857/87. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was appointed in Work Charge Establishment of a permanent nature and his post is permanent in nature as the petitioner 'sservices are required by the department since last about more than 30 years.;